Weissglass NO v Savonnerie Establishment (288/90) [1992] ZASCA 95; 1992 (3) SA 928 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 275 (A) (29 May 1992)

Weissglass NO v Savonnerie Establishment (288/90) [1992] ZASCA 95; 1992 (3) SA 928 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 275 (A) (29 May 1992)

The court held that Savonnerie failed to establish that its claims against Atlantic were maritime claims as defined by the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The payments made by Savonnerie were found to be reimbursements for expenses already incurred by Atlantic's agent, QLM, rather than advances made to enable the supply of necessaries to the vessels. English admiralty law, as incorporated by the Act, does not recognize claims for reimbursement of an agent for necessaries already supplied as maritime claims unless the advance was made prior to the supply for the purpose of obtaining the necessaries. The court further found that the requirements for attachment to found jurisdiction...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 95
Parties
Appellant: Dov Weissglass NO; Respondent: Savonnerie Establishment
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1992
Case Number
288/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division Order in Admiralty Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal upheld; attachment order set aside; costs awarded to appellant including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, E M Grosskopf, Nestadt, Van Den Heever, Howie
Legal Topics
Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, Attachment to Found Jurisdiction, Maritime Claim Definition, Necessaries Supplied to Ship
Admiralty and Maritime Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act Attachment to Found Jurisdiction Maritime Claim Definition Necessaries Supplied to Ship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dov Weissglass NO

Appellant

Savonnerie Establishment

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division Order in Admiralty Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the attachment of the vessels to found jurisdiction was correctly granted under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act.
  2. 2 Whether Savonnerie's claims against Atlantic constituted maritime claims as defined by the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the payments made by Savonnerie to Atlantic were loans giving rise to maritime claims or payments for fish purchased.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Savonnerie failed to establish that its claims against Atlantic were maritime claims as defined by the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. The payments made by Savonnerie were found to be reimbursements for expenses already incurred by Atlantic's agent, QLM, rather than advances made to enable the supply of necessaries to the vessels. English admiralty law, as incorporated by the Act, does not recognize claims for reimbursement of an agent for necessaries already supplied as maritime claims unless the advance was made prior to the supply for the purpose of obtaining the necessaries. The court further found that the requirements for attachment to found jurisdiction...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; attachment order set aside; costs awarded to appellant including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the fees of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order setting aside the attachment granted on 24 January 1986 under case no 623/86.